Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the Commandant 132 Battalion, C.R.P.F. Komderai CC Pur (Manipur); order dated 5.1.2008 passed by the Commandant 132nd Battalion, Adityapur, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand); order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Agra Mumbai Road, Gwalior (M.P.); order dated 9.5.2014 passed by Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh Sector, CRPF, Bhopal (M.P.); and order dated 19.3.2015/24.3.2015 passed by the Special Director General, Central Zone, C.R.P.F., Salt Lake, Kolkata (West Bengal). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a mandamus to the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and grant him monthly pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits treating the petitioner to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 5.1.2008.

2. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, the learned counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Gyan Narayan Kanaujiya, has pointed out to this Court that the writ petition was not maintainable as this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction. It was also pointed out by him that he had raised this preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the first day of hearing i.e. on 20.4.2015 and on the request of the counsel for the petitioner the matter has been adjourned to enable him to prepare his arguments regarding the maintainability, this adjourment was sought repeatedly by the counsel for the petitioner for past several dates.

3. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India that initially when the said writ petition was filed a prayer was made only for issuance of the mandamus to the authorities to decide his representation said to be pending and for a mandamus to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire w.e.f. 5.1.2008. Later on, the Amendment Application was allowed and the prayer for quashing of several orders as mentioned herein above was made by the petitioner.

4. It has been pointed by the counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 6 that no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow. The petitioner was appointed on 11.4.1986 as Constable/G.G. In the C.R.P.F. A memorandum of charge under Section 10 of the CRPF Act was issued by the Commandant 132 Battalion, Komderai CC Pur (Manipur) on 8.9.2005 for unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner had replied to the charge-sheet alleging that when he was coming back from leave his bag was stolen at Railway Station, Etawah (U.P.) and in this connection the petitioner had lodged an FIR in police station at Etawah on 29.8.2005. Later on, on 13.9.2007 the Commandant 132 Battalion, CRPF, again issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act stating that on 26.8.2007 the petitioner went out and drank liquor without permission of the competent authority. The 132 Battalion, CRPF had by then shifted to Adityapur, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) and therefore, the punishment order was passed on 5.1.2008 at Jharkhan retiring the petitioner compulsorily w.e.f. 5.1.2008, and the period of suspension w.e.f. 28.8.2007 to 20th of January, 2007 was declared as period not spent on duty.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had already submitted an Application under Rule 43 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 for voluntary retirement before the competent authority which was still pending. At the same time he had challenged the order of punishment dated 20th of April, 2006, 23rd of June, 2006 and 5th of January, 2008 in Revision under the Rule 29 of CRPF Rules before the Inspector General of Police, Special Sector, CRPF, New Delhi on 1.3.2014. Since the bag of the petitioner had been stolen at Etawah Railway Station, for which he had lodged a First Information Report at Etawah Police Station, an